China DOS Union

Does free software not talk business?



　　What kind of software can be called free software, how much room is there for its development in China, and can it become an opportunity for the rapid growth of China's software industry? At the free software forum held on June 24 by the “China Computer Federation Youth Forum (YOCSEF),” the topics everyone was most interested in were the future business model and promotion model of free software, and what companies engaged in free software development and services could rely on to make profits. Dr. Gong Min said that when the founders of free software created free software, they did not consider money at all, so the promotion model of free software must be a kind of unorganized free development.

　　No matter what their original intention was in creating free software, in any case free software has already “spread of its own accord,” and has also been widely applied. So should free software end up in businessmen’s pockets, or should it truly be contributed to the public? A passage by Dr. Li Mingshu, the new YOCSEF chairman and deputy director of the Institute of Software of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, on free software and the communist movement pushed the discussion to a climax. Here, we publish the views of the experts who attended, for our readers’ enjoyment.

The definition of “free” and “non-free”

　　Gao Wen:
　　As for free software, I think first of all it is a new industrial model, because software includes commercial copy software and shareware. Among this copied software, there is some utility software with restricted functions. Such software can be freely distributed, but generally becomes invalid automatically after 60 days. And shareware, of course, can also be freely distributed at first, but there are requirements in the copyright license; once a usage license is signed, an individual can of course use it, but if it is for commercial operation, payment must be made. This belongs to one kind of “Shareware.” In addition, there is some free executable-code software that can be used and distributed free of charge, but the source code cannot be shared. There is also some non-commercial software, such as that used for education and scientific research, which can also be freely obtained and distributed, but it is mainly aimed at non-profit institutions; if a group or company uses it, it must also be purchased, and this is also true of some free library software. In my understanding, free software generally refers to open-source software. Open source now has all kinds of different licenses, such as “BSD” style, “Apache” style, and the current “Linux” style. These different styles impose stronger or weaker constraints on users, but no matter which one it is, one common feature is that the program source code is open.

　　Hong Feng:

　　Free software has four layers of meaning: first, for the user, there is the freedom to run the program; second, users must be allowed to obtain the source code and modify the program according to their own needs; third, it must be permitted to use this free software to help the people around them; fourth, there is the freedom to form communities based on this software, including by using the source program or modified programs. As long as it conforms to these four meanings, we can call it free software.

Free software talks interests
　　Gao Wen:
　　I think software is a product of human culture. For example, with the written characters we use, no one would say that writing one Chinese character entitles them to so much money, but if you write a beautiful article or publish a book, your article or book can be sold for money. Software is the same, especially platform software such as operating systems and tools. Once it has developed to a certain extent, it becomes some of the basic building blocks of human culture, and these building blocks ought to be open and shared by everyone. But for higher-level things created on top of this platform, they become works.

　　From the perspective of business models, I think the whole open source code approach is also a business model, though of course some may disagree with me. I think today’s software business models can be viewed from two angles. One is the typical model like Microsoft’s, conducting business by selling commercial copies; while free software may actually have two profit-making methods: direct profit and indirect profit. Direct profit is actually made through after-sales service, publishing and distributing teaching materials, and providing training. Indirect profit may be even more important: because the source code is opened and widely recognized and spread by society, the author’s fame rises sharply, thus giving them very high value. But it must be admitted that quite a number of people are actually volunteers, what you might call “enthusiast”-level software hobbyists. These people have relatively stable sources of income and in their spare time put their works on the Internet, allowing their creative urge to be fully exercised. At present there are still quite a number of such people.

　　Hong Feng:

　　How should we view the relationship between the interests of free software and commerce? Free software obviously does not reject commercial operation; it respects commercial operation, on the condition that the commercial operation is free, namely the four levels I mentioned above. If a commercial company can provide users with this kind of freedom, free software will succeed in the market. Many American enterprises have obtained recognition on the Nasdaq market of Wall Street through the free software model. The Free Software Foundation and free software communities all hope such companies will succeed, as long as they remember to continue providing users with such freedom in the future. Although there are still not many domestic free software companies, as long as everyone can clearly understand this startup model, corresponding companies will become more and more numerous.

　　Free software lowers the transaction costs of society as a whole, so it itself contains tremendous social wealth. This requires every company in society to fully understand the meaning of the freedom contained in software, and to obey the rules of the GPL game, turning this “freedom” into even greater social wealth.

　　Gong Min:

　　Can free software talk about interests, and is exploring the profit space of free software beneficial to the development of free software? On this question, the founder of free software had a saying. He said the “Free” in “Free Software” should not be understood as free of charge, but rather emphasizes its “freedom,” and money should not be too entangled in this matter. But at the same time he said, I did not forbid you to make money, because free software itself can be distributed, and in the process of distribution, if you want to charge money I do not forbid it, and if you do not charge money I have no objection. But there is one rule you must understand: the recipient of your distribution enjoys the same rights as you. You can sell the software to Zhang San, and Zhang San likewise has the right to sell it to Li Si. This is the so-called GPL rule of free software.


　　Now let us look again at how free software developed from nothing to what it is today. I cannot name a single profitable company; from compilers to kernels, not one item was done by a profit-making institution. So I think that, in a certain sense, the concept of free software has no direct relationship with profit. As for whether there is room for profit, I do not think this is a question scientists and software developers should consider. If you want to make money, there are plenty of ways; there is no need to insist on making money from other people’s work. That is my personal view.

　　Sun Yufang:

　　Nowadays when people talk about software they often mention “copying.” I think that buying a piece of software does not mean you have bought the entire software, only its right of use. On this point, commercial users should be given a good explanation. For businesses, making free software can bring benefits through providing knowledge services. Of course, at present there are still some mistaken ideas in China, such as the belief that services should not cost money, and that software itself is a kind of service, so there may be obstacles in this respect in the future. But before attitudes are completely changed, we still need to continue supporting services, otherwise people will not dare use the software you develop. I think the areas that can truly gain benefits should be high-end servers and embedded systems, because embedded systems are very complex, such as mobile communications, network infrastructure, information appliances, and now WAP and so on.

　　In the future we do have a positioning, which is to develop high-end applications and provide users with a real choice. Of course this does not mean we must keep making money. We hope to integrate our work into free software or put it into the shareware alliance, and at the same time I hope to manage it well, so that after everyone uses it, they can acknowledge our work. I hope these software projects can be well organized and managed so they can truly develop.

　　Yang Zhenkun:

　　Free software products are promoted in society by companies, but I have never understood how free software companies make money. The profits from operating systems are actually relatively low, and free software would be even lower. Also, I used to regard free software as free operating systems, with very high technical content, so it requires close cooperation. For example, Windows 2000 test source code, while Linux was put together rather loosely by many people. How does it achieve rigorous coordination?

　　Gong Min:

　　I think free software companies probably cannot make money. It is said that worldwide, except for one company that made a little money, the others basically do not make money. But if people praise you, you might get some money from the capital market. Perhaps you can also make money by developing application systems and providing services.

Free software and “communism”
　　Li Mingshu:
　　I have this idea: I often compare free software with the communist movement. I think the free software movement is a little like the communist movement in the West. It was once very popular to a certain extent, but it may also enter a period of decline. But I believe in communism, and I think the communist ideal is absolutely good, so from this I judge that the free software movement will also enter a downturn for a time. I have several reasons for this. First, what really makes money is not free software itself, but companies like Unix, which have made a lot of money under the banner of free software. Second, the GPL rules: I very much agree with Mr. Hong Feng’s view—Unix is not at all a complete representative of free software, but I feel that in the eyes of many people now, GPL equals Unix, and this is one sign of a downturn. Third is the issue of commercialization. The current development of the free software movement has a certain conflict with the values of commercial society. Lenin once made a judgment about socialism: socialism would first achieve victory in part of the countries. And China is a country that achieved a breakthrough first. This is my basic conclusion.

　　I have some views about China’s situation that I would like to discuss with everyone. First, I believe that none of those present here today are so poor they cannot keep the pot boiling; if your family were waiting for rice to cook, I believe none of you would be attending this forum. Second, economic conditions have shaped the development of free software.

　　I think the support point of free software is belief. Like communism, in the end it can only truly develop by relying on belief. The analogy may not be entirely appropriate, but discussing it this way may be more thought-provoking.

　　Gao Wen:

　　Communism is actually the idealized realm proposed by Marx that we ought to pursue. In that society there are neither classes nor gaps between rich and poor; everyone is completely equal, and distribution is according to need. My view is that free software is a kind of communist society for software: just as when material goods are extremely abundant, everyone takes whatever they want, and then uses it to build the applications they want to make. But why has China’s software development not advanced? Aside from all kinds of management-related reasons, the most important thing is that we have lacked earlier accumulation, which makes it very hard for us to do deep work. But free software changes the whole rules of the game. If everything is open, everyone stands on the same starting line, then everyone can compete again from the beginning. This is of relatively great benefit to China. In addition, for the state, enterprises, or research units, the initial investment may be very large. We need to use a lot of manpower to do the foundational work well. With free software, most of this problem can be solved. For those developers with software talent, I think there will be a bigger stage and greater room for them to fully display their abilities.

Who will drive free software
　　Gao Wen:
　　The advantage of free software is that the intelligence of developers can be pooled, and this pooling and sharing of intelligence has grown together with the Internet. Free software is software of genius, a paradise of idealism. But its drawback is that the cost of management is relatively high, because no organization takes full responsibility for it, and providers of open source code assume no responsibility at all.

　　Free software will certainly lead to changes in the entire structure of the software industry. In today’s software industry it is easy for giant companies like Microsoft to appear, but if things shift toward free software, such giant companies would actually find it hard to exist. The free software industry does not rely on huge organizations backed by considerable funds to operate the market; instead it is completely decentralized, relying on education and training to support development. Therefore free software is better able to bring out the creativity of young individuals and small groups. For example, if someone wants to be hired by Microsoft, they must first pass all kinds of tests Microsoft gives them, including ability, quality, programming level, and so on. But after being hired, that does not necessarily mean they will produce very good software. Under the free software model, however, as long as they write a piece of software and throw it onto the Internet, no one will test them at all. If the software is really useful, it will spread widely, and at the same time the person who wrote it will also gain recognition. Such an open environment will allow some genuine software experts to gather together and tackle difficult problems, and will make the software culture of society as a whole advance rapidly. In this game, the real protagonists should be young students, not highly experienced software engineers in big enterprises.

　　 The Gongchuang Software Alliance will play an organizing role: whoever makes the best software, the organization will provide some funding. This is most beneficial to students in universities. Young people should be encouraged to innovate, so as to align with the broader trend of open source.

　　Li Anyu:

　　As far as I know, Microsoft’s development costs for all its developers account for only 15% of its total budget, while 85% is spent on supporting service facilities. The Gongchuang Software Alliance is meant to let everyone stand on the shoulders of giants. But how to raise the software application level of the entire country—in this most expensive part, there is actually still not much of a solution. How to promote it nationwide, and how different parties should coordinate with each other, remains a big problem. In the previous 10 years, companies like Microsoft and Novell produced many products, and thus earned a lot of money; now they can use that money on sales and services. We are a developing country. Our software products have not yet earned money, and to rely on services to accumulate capital right from the beginning is not very realistic for newly established companies.

　　Hong Feng:

　　If services are to be treated as an industry, then a system should be established. And to establish a system requires transaction costs. The biggest challenge for free software to operate in China lies in whether such a system can be established. When Microsoft spends most of its budget on market promotion, what they are actually handling is the relationship among IQ, EQ, and social quotient. For a person, the ratio of these three should be: IQ 5%, EQ 10%, and the remaining 85% should be whether that person can establish an interface with society; the ability to communicate with society is very important. Enterprises are the same. But with free software and the Internet, the cost of this part—the so-called transaction cost—is greatly reduced.

　　Gong Min:

　　 I believe that up to now, the main channel by which free software has spread is that it spreads of its own accord; it is absolutely not promoted by businessmen. Its future development is also unlikely to break away too much from this pattern.

　　Sun Yufang:

　　Free software is not developed for freedom’s sake; in the end its commercial application value must be realized. That is the real fundamental purpose of free software, so users’ problems absolutely must be solved. Commercial application is definitely the key factor in driving a software product’s development.

　　Wang Yangsheng:

　　I have two questions. First, is the “Red Flag Linux” product free software or commercial software? If it is free software, what does the company rely on to maintain its operations? If it is commercial software, then how is the software copyright handled? Second, under China’s current environment, should commercial software be promoted, or should free software be promoted? In the process of developing free software, developers need guarantees for their livelihood, and in China at present, there are not many cases where people support themselves while independently developing products.

　　Sun Yufang:

　　This is a very sensitive issue, namely the issue of the business model. On this issue, I should say I still do not have a final conclusion. As a company, making money is part of its corporate culture. Even in research institutes or universities, producing achievements also requires money. But for a company, legally striving for greater turnover and profit is success.

　　Hong Feng:

　　In fact everyone encounters such issues in China; survival is the first thing that must be solved. But from another angle, a person who writes free software can itself gain a great deal of enjoyment from it, and for developers that is also a kind of return. You can rely on it to accumulate social reputation. From the perspective of Western economics, this kind of reputation is intangible assets, and intangible assets can in certain circumstances be transformed into wealth.

　　Chen Rong:

　　Our company is making an operating system, and I hope to talk about one issue: respect for knowledge. As for development, I think free software is very useful for software education. Looking at it from another side, at the present stage free software may be beneficial to China’s software development, and we can promote this matter; this is a matter of winning the country. But governing the country afterward depends on how you want to govern it—you cannot go too far in what you say, kill off all the rich people, and then when you turn back around and want to find capitalists again, none can be found!

　　Cai Jianjun:

　　What I want to say is, do not stir up the state into putting all its money into free software, because our country has been deceived too many times on many key investment issues. As for free software, I actually feel that for things like OS, it is enough for a small number of groups to do them, and application software can also borrow the ideas of free software to develop a bit better. For example, a lot of software could adopt something like the concept of freelance contributors, with a small number of people making a particular specialized piece of software, and then some organization able to evaluate that software. When companies are doing large-scale applications, they can take the source code and integrate it, thus reducing society’s waste in software.

Is free software secure
　　Gao Wen:
　　One issue with free software is the issue of responsibility, which we can also understand as the credibility of the organization. When we buy Microsoft software, to a large extent it is because we have a certain degree of trust in that company; if problems occur, the company must use its reputation to take responsibility for the software. But open source is different: if problems occur, the provider of the open source code assumes no responsibility. This may be one weakness of open source.

　　Are operating systems based on free software secure? I think they are more secure. Why are our current operating systems insecure? Is it because passwords have been cracked? No. The main reason is some imperfect areas left behind by the designers when developing the system, and when systems are breached, it is often precisely at these imperfect points. No system can be extremely perfect the moment it is first made. But for hackers attacking systems, whether your system is public or not, they have ways to analyze it and try to get in. In a closed system, only the people who wrote the system can look at it and discover vulnerabilities, which is very limiting. Open source has one advantage: once software is put on the Internet, there may be thousands upon thousands of engineers looking at it. Once a problem is found, everyone will think of ways to solve it. The more people look at it, the more chances there are to discover problems, and the greater the possibility of patching the vulnerabilities, making it harder for others to attack.

　　Hong Feng:

　　I think first of all that security is not an absolute concept; there is nothing absolutely secure in the world. When the United States launches a space shuttle, so many scientists work together on it, and everyone thinks there definitely will not be any problem, yet one year seven astronauts lost their lives because of it. From this perspective, free software has a great advantage over commercial software, because it provides source code.

　　Gong Min:

　　We often hear that Unix has been breached, BSD has been breached, and so on, but have you ever heard that Linux has reserved back doors? It seems not. These are two problems of different nature. One is problems caused by oversight in work or programming errors that were not anticipated; the other is when some manufacturers leave some back doors for certain purposes.

　　The innovation model of free software has in fact already changed. From nothing to something, it was basically not planned by any one person or organization. Regarding the question of security, I suggest that China make extensive use of free software to raise the security of information infrastructure. Free software offers better security than commercial software. No organization is better than having organization; everyone shares a common ideal. In addition, the source code is open, so if you wish to add some security facilities of your own into it, that is also very easy.

　　Sun Yufang:

　　Speaking of security, I think one aspect is to consider commercial users, and another is to consider especially confidential users, that is, the military, or particularly sensitive government departments. People often think that if the source code is public, then you can add security things to it, but at the same time hackers or others can also add such things; this is what is meant by when virtue rises a foot, vice rises ten. My view is that open source will not be more insecure than the present situation where source code is not open, but you must do more rigorous work.

Gao Wen, head of the National 863 Intelligent Computer Expert Group, chairman of the Gongchuang Software Alliance
Hong Feng, CEO of Wuhan Rongshi Data Communication Co., Ltd.
Gong Min, research scientist at Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Sun Yufang, deputy director and researcher, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Li Mingshu, deputy director and researcher, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Yang Zhenkun, professor, Institute of Computer Research, Peking University
Li Anyu, director, E-Commerce Technology Research Center, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Wang Yangsheng, researcher, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Chen Rong, general manager, Beijing Ketai Century Technology Co., Ltd.
Cai Jianjun, general manager, Beijing Disaipu Software Company

(Note: compiled from recordings by our reporters Cheng Hong and Yin Mingfang, not confirmed by the persons themselves)




Excerpted from：http://www.oso.com.cn

Free = freedom? free of charge? GPL!
The word Free became popular along with computer software, but unfortunately most people in Taiwan often misunderstand what it means. Right, there is no political meaning here So does Free mean free of charge, or freedom? Usually we judge the meaning of a word from the context, whether in English or Chinese. So “hot pot” at home or at Hai Pa Wang is something you can eat, while on a basketball court it means something you can block, and the English word china can mean China or porcelain.

But when it comes to Free, it can mean “free/liberated” or “free of charge,” and these two meanings are already somewhat easy to confuse. Used with computer software, that becomes a bit problematic. Back when the Internet was not yet so widespread, about five or six years ago, everyone was still a regular on dial-up BBSes. At that time the popular discussion areas were not unified like today’s tw.bbs.*; instead there were separate groups like the “90 network” or the “xx network.” If you still remember, you probably haven’t forgotten the popular offline mail readers at the time, like Lanbo Kuaixin, Yinban Kuaixin, and so on. Back then, to download software you had to slowly pull it down with a modem. Uh, that’s still true now, but speeds are much faster than before. When downloading software, you would often notice that some programs were marked freeware, and others shareware. The domestic translation was free software and shared software. At the time I could never quite figure it out—weren’t both free? Why split them into two categories? (Note)

Freeware
Freeware means software that is free of charge, and in fact some people also explain free software as free software in the sense of no cost. But this is different from what GNU GPL advocates. Generally speaking, according to GPL, the free in free software means freedom, not price. Most freeware circulating on the net lets everyone use it freely, charges nothing, and imposes no functional limitations. But the author is under no obligation to provide you with the program source code. In other words, maybe Zhang San gets inspired today and writes a pinball game, then compiles it under Windows and passes it to his friends to play without charging anything, but he does not have to conveniently include the source code too.

That is to say, freeware is itself a general term, a general name for software that costs nothing and has no functional restrictions, while another kind that also costs nothing but does have restrictions is called shareware.

Shareware
Compared with freeware, shareware can be regarded as a trial version of a company’s software product.

Some shareware merely adds a check inside the program, so you need to register—whether by paying money or just writing a letter—to obtain a registration code, and after entering it you get all the functions. Others only provide part of the game stages or some of the functions, and you need to wait until the software officially goes on sale and then buy it. This is also the method most game companies adopt, so you don’t have to wait until after buying it to know whether it is good or not.

Take Wolfenstein 3-D, which dazzled everyone five years ago, as an example. At the time it was hugely popular on various online sites, and inside there was only one mission, with ten levels total. (Ugh... back then in order to download it, because of the ul/dl ratio limit, I even wrote to the sysop to beg.) Later a software company officially became its local agent. This was a successful example, and it is also now one of the marketing methods used by most software companies. Of course, for consumers, this is also a good thing. After all, you can’t just buy something based on the screenshots on the back of the box plus heavy promotion in magazines (there is no insinuation here toward a certain big software agent company from the past).


GNU GPL and BSD License


GNU GPL and BSD License are the two kinds of licenses most often discussed domestically at present, mainly due to the popularity of Linux and FreeBSD. Of course there are also copyright declarations such as NPL/MPL (Netscape Public License), but they are mostly similar to GPL.


GNU GPL
In just a few short years GNU GPL has attracted the attention of the local computer crowd. Unless you are a die-hard loyalist to Microsoft, you must have heard of or seen the three letters GPL. GPL is short for General Public License, and the key point of GPL is OpenSource, that is, open source code.

GPL’s unique copyleft (the opposite of copyright :p) requires that as long as what you write uses GPL program code, you must also provide the source code and the GPL declaration document, and you may not charge any royalties for that program. However, the cost of making copies and so on does not count. The strict part is that any programs written afterward must also be handled this way. In other words, as long as any GPL program code is used in the software you develop, then that software is GPL software, and any software further developed from that software must also be GPL. And it must also include the source code and the GPL declaration.

So this is also something some software companies cannot accept. For certain programs with proprietary patent ownership, they have no way to use GPL licensing. For example, some encryption program code subject to export restrictions differs between North America and regions outside North America. Once GPL must be adopted, that code has to be discarded or rewritten. However, the strength of the OpenSource community is tremendous. OpenSource software such as OpenSSL and OpenSSH can all be used FREE.


BSD License
BSD License was originally used on the various 4.4BSD/4.4BSD-Lite releases published by the University of California, Berkeley, and later it gradually continued in use.
Compared with GPL’s strictness, BSD License is much more relaxed. It likewise requires the license declaration document to be included, but does not require provision of the source code. You can provide only executable files or binary form to others. It feels a bit like the freeware mentioned earlier, just with an added license. But more interestingly, it also requires all copyright information for program developers to be included, so when receiving software released under BSD License you may run into a small situation—the license takes up more space than the program itself— :p So there are modified BSD Licenses, such as the FreeBSD License used by FreeBSD. It is the same as BSD License, except that those advertising clauses are removed.


Choosing a License
If some part of the program you are using today is already GPL or BSD License, then there is nothing to consider. But if you are starting from nothing, then which should you choose, or should you start another stove of your own?
From the perspective of the open source community, GPL is the best choice. At the very least, once it is published everyone can help debug it. If you do not like publishing the source code (for example if some encryption algorithm is used), then you can consider BSD License. Or you can also refer to the news: GPL vs BSDL.

Conclusion


Over the past year the struggle between MS Windows and Linux has entered a white-hot stage. Some time ago Bill Gates and Robert Young came to Taiwan to make their case (see the news: Bill Gates and Robert Young). This column hopes to provide newbies with some basic knowledge, so they can better understand the meaning of free and GPL, and then contribute one more bit of goodwill to the open source community.



Excerpted from：http://linuxfab.cx

Can Linux succeed in China
　　The issue of China’s operating system has already become a topic enthusiastically pursued by the IT media several years ago. Whether it was UCDOS in the DOS era, or Linux in the Windows era, or last year’s contest between Venus and Nüwa involving Windows CE and Hopen, as well as the unremitting pursuit of UNIX, all reflect the enduring longing and hope among Chinese people for an independent operating system.

　　The direct driving force behind the state’s consistent advocacy of developing an independent operating system is concern that national information security is under threat. In the late 1980s, the state mobilized manpower and material resources to carry out key research projects on domestic system software and UNIX/POSIX standards. At present, the Chinese government is also vigorously supporting the development and application of linux. Winning the initiative in application software development, revitalizing China’s software industry, and developing an independent operating system have become a consensus among government authorities, scientific researchers, and the broad user base.

　　What an independent operating system needs

　　Developing an independent operating system is not just a matter of talk. Right now many Linux vendors are all raising the banner of their own national operating systems, but developing a truly independent operating system requires a great deal of early preparation and accumulation.

　　First of all we must consider what the purpose of developing an independent operating system is. Is it merely to save face? When developing China’s independent operating system, market and user demand must first be established.

　　At present, many domestic Linux developers do not have an objective understanding of what exactly their purpose is in developing Linux. When developing their own Linux, there is often too much subjective intent and too little in the way of reasonable measures and methods.

　　Using Linux to develop an independent operating system does not necessarily mean having to “start from scratch.” A great deal of the software and data resources already established in Linux development can still be used. Because of worry that once they touch these foreign things they will no longer have their own independent copyright, they choose fully from-scratch development; at most this can only be called coping desperately. Naturally there can be no talk of the coordination and innovation Linux requires, and in the end they can at most integrate a system. In addition, how far the commercialization of linux products can go is not something Linux itself can control.

　　The Chinese reality of Linux

　　It is understood that Microsoft’s sales performance in China is currently down 20% from its peak period. But Linux has not been especially agile in following up. On the contrary, Linux’s desktop share in China can be ignored entirely. In reality, more desktop users are using pirated or OEM-installed Windows operating systems, while Linux’s desktop dream has never been realized. This is the reality of the Linux operating system in China.

　　But Linux’s more direct competition with Windows is still on the server side. At present it is obvious that major server-using sectors such as telecommunications are more often using UNIX, while Linux has always remained in a supporting role, or the role of a substitute player. linux is often the first choice of some small and medium enterprises for Internet servers, and this is not entirely because Linux is cheaper as a server. More of the reason is that there are more technicians who can handle Linux than people who understand UNIX.

　　Perhaps everyone will ask, where has Windows NT been squeezed out to at this moment? In fact, there are relatively few Internet servers using NT. Although technically NT is more widely used, in China Telecom’s server hosting, charges are not based on what operating system you use, but on bandwidth and server storage space. So in the contest of performance versus cost, Linux often wins. But NT occupies a large part of the Intranet market, and for that it should thank the vendors doing system integration. But Linux is growing far faster than NT in China; this is an indisputable fact.

　　The Chinese government strongly supports Linux. In the government’s eyes, it seems to be not only a trump card for checking Microsoft, but also a trump card for enriching the software industry. This is why dozens of Linux brands can appear domestically, while an absolute major force like RED HAT has never officially appeared in China. I believe that if Microsoft truly understands something about China’s Linux market, it will adjust some of its viewpoints.

　　Can Linux shoulder this important task?

　　Linux has always carried the important task of helping China achieve an independent operating system. But can Linux really shoulder this task? We can discuss it from three angles.

　　1. The government’s attitude toward the Linux industry

　　At present, our government has raised the information industry, information technology, and its application to a very important strategic position, because it directly concerns a nation’s comprehensive strength. And the software industry is the most fundamental and most core industry within the information industry. Linux is of course a fine opportunity for China’s software industry to develop independent products and technology, not only because the Linux system has strong security, and can save the country large sums otherwise spent on buying foreign operating systems, but more importantly because developing China’s Linux can bring Chinese software development into high-end fields and into the international market, powerfully promoting the development of our country’s independent operating system.

　　Domestic experts believe that open and free linux will be a shortcut for China to master core computer technologies. And the government’s voice is: develop China’s own operating system.

　　On July 15, 1999, the Ministry of Information Industry organized and held for the first time the high-level seminar “The Future Development of LINUX.” More than 200 people attended, including vice minister Qu Weizhi of the Ministry of Information Industry, other leaders, well-known experts, and enterprise representatives. The meeting reached a consensus that efforts should be increased to comprehensively promote the spread and application of LINUX in China. At the same time, the state would give support in policy, enterprise application, standards setting, and taxation.

　　On April 20, 2000, the Ministry of Information Industry hosted the “Seminar on Strategies for Promoting the Healthy Development of LINUX.” At the seminar, leaders from the Ministry of Information Industry and software industry associations, vendors issuing Chinese linux, many software developers, and related media gathered together to jointly review the development of domestic Linux over the past year and look ahead to Linux’s broad application prospects. Moreover, relevant people from the Ministry of Information Industry once again expressed the government’s clear attitude of strongly supporting Linux development, and its hopes for linux distributors and related software vendors: unity, innovation, development. He also said that the government would not overly interfere in the development of the linux industry, and that in areas such as setting standards, it would adopt relatively flexible methods to adapt to the new characteristics of this industry.

　　2. Problems with Linux itself

　　Because of the organizational characteristics of its own development, combined with the legacy of UNIX, Linux’s expansion has been subject to some innate limitations of its own. The development of ease of use in an operating system must proceed step by step, and Linux’s hacker habits will make it difficult for it to achieve the ease of use required by ordinary desktop users. Although Linux itself belongs to source-code-open free software, from one perspective the openness of an operating system’s source code leaves hidden dangers for security. Whether Linux is used on servers, desktops, or even in embedded fields, its drawback is that Linux cannot be used in high-end fields the way UNIX can. And Linux’s popularization and commercialization are also limited by Linux’s own technical and service constraints, and this will continue to hinder Linux’s breakthrough as China’s operating system.

　　3. Can freedom and commerce coexist

　　Open source code is the characteristic of free software. Any interested user can modify and extend it, so the users of free software are often also its authors. Therefore, the development team of a good free software project may be quite large, absolutely no less than the development team of a large commercial company. This development model has already created many miracles, and Linux is one of the best among them.

　　The reason for discussing the combination of freedom and commerce is that China’s software industry has never been able to link its understanding of freedom with the market and commerce, while linux happens to be free software. There are many kinds of commercial profit models using linux, and these include Chinese-localized versions as well, but to develop a complete independent operating system it must inevitably go through the test of the commercial market. And if linux is to serve as the basis for developing an independent operating system, then it must inevitably be combined with a commercial software model.

　　The development model that combines free software with commercial companies has already achieved great success in the West. However, the domestic free software industry is still in its infancy and lags far behind foreign countries. The reason, when examined, is not that domestic software developers are not good enough; in fact, the level of Chinese software developers is among the very best in the world. The key problem lies in people’s awareness and cultural obstacles. At present, major domestic vendors still lack sufficient understanding of free software, and government departments have also not yet fully recognized the significance of the free software development model for the domestic software industry, though these conditions are improving rapidly. Lately, more and more domestic enterprises have been participating in free software development, such as Lenovo, Surf Platform, Sitong, and others. Government departments are also beginning work in this area.



Excerpted from：China Shareware